Editor of the Gazette,I am writing to address Karen Lancaster's column, "Atheists strive for reason, rationalism." I contend it is not the title "atheist" that brings about negative feelings, but the ideology behind it.

Let us ponder for a moment the outcome if the term "atheist" was replaced with "rationalist." What would happen? People would know the name has changed, but the belief, or lack thereof, is the same. For example: If I owned a restaurant that had atrocious service and poorly cooked food I would not be in business for long. If I did nothing to change the service or the food, but changed the name, would it do any good? Maybe for a week. Eventually the customers would see nothing changed but the name. The same goes for atheists. It is not the name that causes a negative reaction. It is the attitude of someone who completely rejects the existence of God and then spits in the face of those who believe in Him.

There is a glaring irony in the statement that religious people feel "superior" to atheists. The points made in the piece reflect the opposite. Lancaster makes reference to the fact we believe a "myth" just because we're too lazy to find the real truth. Lancaster's statement she is a "rationalist" implies anyone with a belief in God is irrational. This elitist view will always hold the atheist population back; it will not help them prove the case of an undeserved oppression.Lancaster's letter proves where the atheist stigma comes from. The majority of the population believes in God. When you call our very real, very personal faith in God a belief in a "myth," it troubles us. Atheists have the freedom to live as they choose - they choose not believe in God. That is atheism defined.